export_games_by_ids

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, affects system state, or what the output format is (e.g., file download, JSON response). For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Export multiple games by IDs' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core function without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'export' entails (e.g., file format, data structure), behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to invoke it correctly without trial and error.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters with clear descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'multiple games' via IDs, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Export multiple games by IDs' clearly states the action (export) and resource (games), specifying it handles multiple items via IDs. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_game' (singular) or 'export_user_games' (by user criteria), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_game' or 'export_user_games'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing game IDs), exclusions, or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without comparative advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.